|
V4
Jun 13, 2022 9:15:40 GMT -5
Wayne likes this
Post by lurp173 on Jun 13, 2022 9:15:40 GMT -5
Wayne,
I believe that I saw this picture you are referring to on a blog website of the Herbert Hoover Library & Museum. I was searching for photos from the LKC and this website had a brief article on the LKC since Hoover was the President in 1932. I thought that this picture was a good example of what the press was publishing in March/April of 1932 regarding all their speculations (and fabrications) about footprint tracks at the Lindbergh house. I'm sure the press was desperate to publish something as the NJSP was being very tight lipped as to the footprint evidence. Unfortunately, I believe pictures like this created fuel for all the various theories throughout the ensuing years as to the movement of the suspects on that night.
Thanks for responding to my questions on the Hibbs rental agreement . After seeing this application, and reading yours and Michael's thoughts on it, I don't see any relevancy to the kidnapping/ransom events. Since it was found in a NYPD Lindbergh kidnapping case file at the NYC Municipal Archives, one would have to question why in the world it was in there. Perhaps as I believe Bernardt on here stated, the NYPD found it in some of Fisch's stored belongings during the execution of the search warrant on Hauptmann's house and garage, and someone with the NYPD took it for further examination without placing the document on any search warrant inventory list or telling the NJSP about it.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 12, 2022 9:57:26 GMT -5
Wayne likes this
Post by lurp173 on Jun 12, 2022 9:57:26 GMT -5
Michael. Not to belabor this, but your quote that was given by the NJSP Publicity Room piqued my curiousity. When the Publicity Room told the press "at the junction of the tension lines and the road west of the house" (as to where the footprints were lost), could they have possibly been referring to the Lindbergh house and the old construction/wagon road and not the old abandoned house and Wertsville Road? The only photo that I have seen with tension (electrical) lines is the one I have attached below. These tension lines running from the west to the Lindbergh house are near (and possibly intersect) with the western part of this old construction/wagon road behind and to the west of the house. For whatever reasons, could the press release be referring to some of the early reports on Oscar Bush's tracking. I have always been confused on some of the tracking that Bush was doing on that morning of the 2nd (as you have stated the footprints were always a tricky situation). For me, either Bush was all over the place or the early reports concerning his tracking were all over the place. The "FBI Files on the Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping" by Fensch relates to an early FBI report on page 83 as to Bush's tracking: Oscar Bush traced tracks "from the ladder through field to Featherbed lane where they ended". "Close to this point were marks in the bushes and in the grass which had apparently been made by an automobile". "Featherbed lane is an old abandoned country road". This FBI report then goes on to confuse this old abandoned road with the real Featherbed Road to the south. I'm just bring this up to ask if you think that the Press Release was mistakenly (or intentionally) referencing the area of the old road behind the Lindbergh house near the electrical lines, and not referring to what DeGaetano and others were doing down at the Wertsville Road entrance. I'm sure that especially early on in the investigation the NJSP were holding things pretty close to the chest in regards to the Press and the FBI (with the exception of the confidential interview with DeLong). I would not be surprised if the NJSP, while pursuing good leads with the footprints/vehicle marks down on the Wertsville Road near the old house, wanted both the Press and the FBI to think that the footprints ended close to the house. This press release could have accomplished that. Just some speculations on my part on the possibility that the "tension lines" and "house" references by the NJSP Press Office may not have any relationship to the vehicle location on the Wertsville Road.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 11, 2022 13:20:10 GMT -5
Wayne likes this
Post by lurp173 on Jun 11, 2022 13:20:10 GMT -5
Wayne, That's how I was interpreting the documentation on the path of the footprints being followed that night. I thought that if a vehicle was indeed parked off of the Wertsville Road north of the chickenhouse area, then it was posible that Lindbergh (turning into his driveway from the south) would not have observed it. It was certainly a very dark moonless/starless night, and I would imagine that vehicle headlights on 1932 circa vehicles reached out only so far. From Michael's posting I believe he is leaning towards a more southernly location on Wertsville Road. Looking forward to his response on this. The attached photo from this forum gives another view of the alleged path to the entrance. One can clearly see that the yellow marked construction access road is a much more direct route to the entrance on Wertsville Road than the red marked new residential driveway. I always thought that this was a great photo of the chickenhouse in relationship to the driveway entrance. Wayne, if I may, I had a couple of questions for you in regards to the Hibbs rental agreement: 1. Have you seen anything to indicate why Cahill attached the year 1932 to the March 1st date? 2. Do you have any idea what type of file this agreement was contained in at the NYC Municipal Archives? 3. Do you suspect that this document has no relevant connection to the LKC? Thanks.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 11, 2022 7:28:34 GMT -5
Post by lurp173 on Jun 11, 2022 7:28:34 GMT -5
Michael,
Thanks for your thorough reponse on this timeline issue of March 1st. I appreciate you taking the time to apply your vast knowledge of all the documentation in the LKC to evaluate my attempts to make some sense out of this. Your extensive research has definitely given you an insight into this case that few have. It frequently appears that this research has allowed you to really "get into the heads" of some of the main NJSP individuals who were front and center in this investigation. That certainly doesn't happen overnight.
It looks like some of my notes were including some information from DeGaetano's statements as well as the DeLong interview in regards to the footprints found in the driveway entrance area near the Wertsville road. I will follow-up on my notes concerning the footprints going across the driveway (north/northeast) towards the chickenhouse and being comingled at this time with fresh dog tracks, I do remember reading this as I immediately thought how this could give an indication of the time the suspects where at the Wertsville Road area and removing the child from the property (if the time given by Kuchter and Krisstofeck concerning their dogs was correct). However, if you have not seen any documentation concerning the contemporaneous dog tracks, then I will have to rethink this.
The footprints that night were obviously a very important aspect to the investigation, however for me the documentation by the NJSP was lacking and confusing. I think this is a good example to show just how critical the first 24 hours on a crime scene are in any investigation. Without an absolute secured scene and a complete and thorough examination/documentation, it leaves so many things up in the air. You get one good shot at the scene, and then others have to live with the results forever (or for at least 90 years!).
Your post has given me many pertinent things to think about; and I would absolutely be interested in hearing your thoughts on Doc Ashton.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 10, 2022 11:44:47 GMT -5
Wayne,
Great job. You are definitely a bulldog on getting things. Interesting to actually see that document and get the information you just posted. Cahill seemed like a decent fellow and I thought that he would accommodate your request but one never knows. That is the amazing thing about Michael; decades of intensive research on the LKC in West Trenton and elsewhere and he shares everything with anyone here.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 9, 2022 17:30:12 GMT -5
Post by lurp173 on Jun 9, 2022 17:30:12 GMT -5
Hiram,
If I recall correctly, Ashton described this vehicle as being a "touring car". If you go to the forum archives under "General Discussion", page 5 there is a thread started by Joe in 2017 under the title "March 1, 1932 Theory Timelines". This has a good discussion in reference to Ashton.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 9, 2022 17:07:22 GMT -5
Post by lurp173 on Jun 9, 2022 17:07:22 GMT -5
Michael,
I wrote the post from notes I took a few year ago from the downloaded copy I have of the DeLong interview. My notes do not reflect page numbers, and I remember that in the 150 plus pages of DeLong's report he jumped around a bit and seemed to both quote Schwartzkopt and summarize him. I will go through this interview and see if I can pinpoint the pertinent issues of footprints, dog prints and vehicle location.
As to Doc Ashton, I do not have a copy of his 1977 Princeton Recollector interview but I did read it when we were discussing him back in 2017. I recall that Amy had some good questions and information on his vehicle sighting, but to my knowledge everything that Ashton related on this event was from that 1977 article. If I recall correctly, he was coming out of the corner store at Greenwood Avenue and Railroad Place after 9 PM when he observed this vehicle speeding across the railroad bridge. I stand to be corrected, but I believe he decribed it a a "touring car". I also believe that Schwartzkopt told DeLong that the NJSP believed a "high power" car was used in the kidnapping.
I realize that one does have to question why Ashton didn't mention this in his two 1932 statements, but he was most likely being interviewed about what he had seen in the days prior to March 1st in his duties as a taxicab driver. Perhaps he just didn't connect what he saw that night coming out of the corner store with the kidnapping. I'm just speculating here, but perhaps he had been told by someone that the vehicle he saw that night did not match the description of the vehicle the police were looking for (the Dodge with the ladder described by Lupica) so Ashton just dismissed it.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 9, 2022 10:37:55 GMT -5
I wanted to make a few comments concerning the topic of "timing" that's being discussed by Michael and Joe. As with just about every aspect of the LKC, this issue of what time the child was removed from the house is open to interpretations of the available evidence. The following are just my thoughts as I read through Michael's and Joe's posts (if I get too long winded here my apologies in advance).
I think that the wildcard in this discussion is that multiple vehicles were involved in this kidnapping. I know that this issue of multiple vehicles has been previously discussed (examined) on the forum, but for me it serves to explain some of what was occurring that night. Parker correctly surmised that the vehicle observed by Conover early in the evening was the same vehicle seen by Moore leaving the area around 8:20PM. It is certainly possible that this was also the same vehicle that Anne Lindbergh heard on the gravel driveway in the 8PM time frame. It has been speculated that this vehicle was dropping off the ladder, etc. to be used by the other perpetrators who were going to execute the actual snatch of the child. If the driver of this vehicle on the driveway had completed his job, he could have sped away from the scene and traveled by Moore around 8:20 PM heading back to NYC. If Parker had believed that only one vehicle had been used in this crime then he would have naturally assumed that the child was in it, and that the child had been taken around 8 PM.
However, if Schwartzkopt is correct in his confidential interview with reporter DeLong shortly after the kidnapping, then there is evidence to suggest that another vehicle was utilized that night in the actual taking of the child. Schwartzkopt told DeLong that the kidnappers' footprints were followed by his Troopers/Investigators that night from the area of the house down the old "construction" driveway until the footprints crossed over to the newer residential gravel driveway near the entrance of the driveway, This is near the old structure at the entrance of the driveway from Wertsville Road (Hopewell-Amwell Road). (Coincidentally this point in the driveway was very close to where Betty Gow subsequently discovered the thumbguard). The footprints continued across the residential driveway and continued north beyond the old chickenhouse and ended at the Wertsville Road where recent tire tracks were observed. Schwartzkopt stated that dog tracks were observed mingled with the suspects' footprints starting at the gravel driveway location and continuing north through the old chickenhouse area. To me, Schwartzkopt certainly appeared to be inferring in this interview that the dog tracts and human footprints were similiar in freshness, etc. to make his Officers believe that they were contemporaneous. Thus it appeared that the dogs were either with, or tracking, the suspects from the driveway location north to where the suspects' footprints ended.
If all of what Schwartzkopt is telling DeLong is correct, then I've always felt that the time given by the two brother-in-laws Kuchter and Kristofeck as to the time their dogs alerted to something across the road in the area of Lindbergh's driveway (9 PM time frame) is important. Out of all the "witnesses" in the LKC, these dogs were probably the only ones with no ulterior motives. They heard something and they responded as only dogs will do. The suspects' footprints and the dog tracks tell the rest of the story. Additionally, if the "escape" vehicle was parked at this location (indicated by the tire tracks) just off of Wertsville Road, it was well north of the Lindbergh driveway. If Lindbergh did arrive home at 8:20 PM or so, he was coming from the south on the Wertsville Road and would have entered the driveway without ever seeing this vehicle.
As an aside, I've always thought that the observations of Doc Ashton in Hopewell that night was very interesting. I realize that Ashton never mentioned this until years later, but I've never heard anything negative about Ashton that would suggest he would make this up. He was a very well liked individual in Hopewell. The vehicle that he stated that he observed "flying" over the railroad bridge on Greenwood Avenue around 9:15 PM or so that night of March 1st would definitely not be a local driver. Anyone who knew about that "hump" in the roadway over the bridge (all locals knew about it) would never drive over that bridge at that speed on a stormy night--wouldn't happen. The driver of that vehicle observed by Ashton did not know about that roadway hump. If the "escape" vehicle parked north of the chickenhouse exited the area by going north on Wertsville Road, it could have made it to that railroad bridge on Greenwood Avenue in Hopewell in 15 minutes or so which does correspond to the time of Ashton's observations. The vehicle would have been heading south on Greenwood Avenue towards Broad Street as Ashton stated. At this point that vehicle was headed in the direction to get to Mt Rose Hill on the Hopewell-Princeton Road and would have been about 4 minutes or so from the body recovery site on that hill. Since hearing of Doc Ashton's story, I've always wondered if he had unkowningly observed the kidnappers' vehicle that night with the child in it (and if so, how the case would have changed if that vehicle had crashed coming over that railroad bridge).
Once again, just some current thoughts I've had concerning the timing of the kidnapping, and any evidence to subtantiate it all. I believe that it is posible that Parker got it partially correct. That vehicle oberved by Moore around 8:20 PM was involved in the kidnapping and was rapidly leaving the area, but the child was not in it. Of course all of this analysis is predicated mostly on the information DeLong recounted in his confidential interview with Schwartzkopt shortly after the kidnapping concerning the crime scene. Obviously none of this information that implies multiple supects and multiple vehicles was helpful to Wilentz's "lone wolf" prosecution theory at trial. To me, it appears that Wilentz's use of this theory in the Hauptmann trial was the biggest driver for all of the controversies that have followed the LKC for 90 years. Wilentz got his conviction, but he did not get a settled case.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 8, 2022 13:12:44 GMT -5
Wayne,
Michael may have a better number, but the last time I checked on him he is an Associate Attorney in NYC with the worker's compensation group of Pasoternack Tiker Ziegler Walsh Staton Romano, LLP with a phome number of (866)456-5939.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 7, 2022 13:09:09 GMT -5
Thanks Michael, Wayne and Joe for responding to my question concerning this apartment rental application. The information that you all have provided certainly makes me think that this document is not related to the kidnapping, The origin of this document is definitely questionable at best. If it had been seized as evidence by the NYPD during the execution of the state search warrant on Hauptmann's premises in September of 1934, it should certainly appear as an item on the search warrant inventory list. Since Michael has never seen it listed as a separate item on any list, one does have to wonder where it came from and how it found its way to the NYC Municipal Archives.
If this document had been positively linked to Hauptmann via statements from representatives of the Hibbs Real Estate & Insurance Company, it would have been very interesting how Wilentz would have handled it. A great piece of evidence against Hauptmann, but adding too much weight to the idea that Hauptmann had no intention of harming the child. The last thing that Wilentz wanted was for the jury to enter the jury deliberation room with the thought that the child was accidentally harmed (his closing argument confirmed this). He wanted that jury to believe that this was a deliberate murder of an innocent child, and Hauptmann was that murderer.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 6, 2022 18:54:41 GMT -5
Wayne,
In regards to your last post, what is your opinion of the document that author Cahill stated that he found in the New York City Municipal Archives? This is the rental application document that was allegedly found in Hauptmann's home/garage. It purports to be a rental application with the Hibbs Real Estate & Insurance Company seeking a one or two room apartment for two people named "Lynch" and "Jones" for a time period of 3/1/32 to 9/30/32. Obviously it is suggesting/insinuating that Hauptmann was planning to keep the child there during the ransom negotiations. Is this a fake document that was planted in the Municipal Achives? Any evidence at all that it actually came from Hauptmann's home/garage?
|
|
|
V4
Jun 2, 2022 9:25:48 GMT -5
Post by lurp173 on Jun 2, 2022 9:25:48 GMT -5
Sue, You are correct that George E. Pierson and Dr. Theodore A. Pierson, Sr. were brothers (and both very good baseball players!). Dr. Pierson was one of Hopewell's few physicians back in the early 1900's, and his two sons were both physicians (the father was the physician who attended to my grandfather's fatal heart attack in May of 1931 while working on the Lindbergh house construction). George Pierson apparently owned the Rexall Drug Store in Hopewell up until the 1920's prior to being owned for a very long time by Paul Cutter. I believe it was Cutter's Drug Store by the time of the LKC. Apparently the pay phone that was always in that Drug Store was one of the few in town in 1932, and needless to say, very popular with the hordes of press. I'm attempting to attach a circa 1900 photo showing both George and Theodore Pierson, Sr.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 1, 2022 20:39:47 GMT -5
Post by lurp173 on Jun 1, 2022 20:39:47 GMT -5
Thanks Wayne. That quote from the Squibb Laboratory Report should be on page 3 under Section II discussing the Examination of Leaves & Soil samples. It's item# 3 of items numbered 1 through 8. It's relating to 1 phalange and 1 calcaneus corresponding to the foot of the infant in the top soil.
I had a tough time getting through Pearlman's book so I don't recall her comment on the maggots. I believe that her book is the only source I've seen that made some vague reference to embalming fluid on/in the corpse as related by Trojanusc in his post. That would certainly be a game changer in the LKC. I would like to see any documentation that provides the evidence to substantiate that allegation.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on May 31, 2022 19:35:24 GMT -5
Michael,
You asked about my opinions on this issue of "when" and "where" as it pertains to the burlap bag and the child's body on Mt Rose Hill. I found your discussion of this in V3, pages 89-93, very interesting, and as always, very thorough. However, my opinion at this time is that the child's body was disposed of in the wooded area on Mt Rose Hill on the night of the kidnapping, and the decomposition/putrefaction processes began immediately while contained in the burlap bag. The bag would have obviously been in some sort of quick make-shift burial depression created in a hurry by the kidnappers. I believe the decomposing body remained in the burlap bag until it was discovered and removed by an animal. To me, the Squibb Laboratory Report's description of the animal hair on the child's garment (and the manner in which the remains were found) strongly suggest the animal was a bobcat. The corpse had remained in the burlap bag for a period of time that was at least long enough for decomposition to create the single bone that was found in the bag. Additionally, the corpse was then in the final shallow "animal hiding grave" long enough that when Investigators lifted the body they noticed that the side of the face against the ground was "different' from the side of the face that had been up. They noticed an immediate "darkening" of that side of the face as it was exposed to air. Also the eye on the side of the face that had been against the earth was still showing a blue color and the facial features (nose, chin, forehead) on that side were still intact. All this indicating that the corpse had been in the "animal grave" for a decent period of time, AFTER it's removal from the bag and original hillside gravesite.
I believe that the Squibb Laboratory Report made some forensic determinations that are relevant to this discussion of the body and burlap bag. I'll list a few:
** "the sack was spotted with soil common in its microscopic characteristics to that of the immediate location" (gravesite soil samples).
** "the soil of location (gravesite samples) contained a small mat of fibers corresponding to the burlap bag entwined with rootlets"
To me, these two findings strongly suggest that the burlap bag was in the area of the submitted soil samples (gravesite location) and not just lying alongside the road for days or weeks. If these soil samples from the gravesite wooded area of Mt Rose Hill had a small mat of burlap fibers entwined with rootlets in them, and the burlap bag was spotted with soil characteristic with the submitted soil samples, it could only mean one thing. No matter how the bag subsequently found its way to the roadside, it had previously been up in the wooded gravesite area with the corpse. I don't really see another option.
Two additional laboratory findings appear to me to suggest that the decomposition and purefaction of the child's body occurred at the site on Mt Rose Hill and not elsewhere:
** "microscopic examination of the soil adherent to the bones revealed no particles not common to the soil in which the bones were found."
** "in the portion of the top soil in which the bones were found, putrefaction and decomposition was evident. Numerous maggots were present."
As to the various accounts by individuals who said they saw activity on the road near the gravesite prior to May 12th, the accounts are interesting but I am always skeptical of such accounts. I am certain that once the body was discovered, people started remembering things. Investigators are always confronted with this, and although they certainly need to be looked at, most will have little relevancy to the case. I always found that most people are not very good at reflecting back on when prior events actually occurred. It seems to be human nature not to have precise memories as to time, dates and places when remembering things that had little importance to them at the time. We just don't seem to live our lives that way, I'm certain a number of vehicles were observed at this roadside pullover area during the time of late April/early May, but it has to be remembered that this spot was the first place to pull a vehicle over as one is coming up the long Mt Rose Hill from Hopewell. With the unreliability of vehicles in 1932, I'm sure many vehicles did use this pullover spot to check on any vehicle problems, etc. It also seems reaonable to me that if the child was dumped off here it would have been done under the cover of darkness with no one observing it.
I know that Rab Purdy is well informed on the LKC, and I have read many of his outstanding past forum posts, but I would respectfully offer a different viewpoint from some of his listed obsservations on page 92 as to the Mt Rose location. I am getting very long-winded here so I will save my opinions on this for another post.
I couldn't agree more with you concerning your final paragraph on this topic on page 93. The important question of WHY!!! I like to think that I have a pretty good perspective on the criminal mindset, and I can think of NO reason in this case why any kidnapper/extortionist would ever risk being caught red-handed with the decaying corpse of the Lindbergh child in their vehicle (this is one reason I believed that they ditched the child's body as fast as they could on the night of March 1st). Criminals are only concerned with what is in their best interest. They would obviously know that to be caught with this child's body would mean a straight and quick trip to the N.J.'s electric chair. After the ransome payment on April 2nd, they had their money and that was the end if it. Thus, as you state, this leaves only one person who would have any semblance of a motive to do this. Since I do not see the evidence to support the theory that Lindbergh was responsible for a fake kidnapping of his son, this motive fails for me and adds to the reasons why I reject the idea that the child's body was "dropped on the roadside". If one does believe that Lindbergh was involved and was responsible for his son's body being "returned" to prevent further ransome demands, then for me this begs two questions:
1. Who in the world would Lindbergh be able to get to actually carry out this insanely dangerous act?
2. If Lindbergh knew that his son was deceased (and knew that it could be retrieved and deposited on the Mt Rose Hill road) why would he have not had this done just prior to April 2nd and thus shortcircuit this whole double-cross extortion attempt altogether. If he was capable of having the corpse magically appear to announce to the world that the child was deceased, why didn't he do it to avoid paying $50,000 to a group of double-crossing extortionists? For me, the "why" of this theory just has no reasonable explanation.
These are just some of my thoughts and opinions on this aspect of the LKC, and I don't mean to reject the speculations, opinions, theories, etc. of others. As you have always said Michael. each individual who examines this case has to evalute all of the evidence and data and then come to a conclusion that they feel is reasonable. I do believe that the Squibb Laboratory Report does provide some valuable insights on the LKC.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on May 29, 2022 17:01:36 GMT -5
As I view the evidence, there was definitely animal activity involved with the child's body and the burlap bag. An animal reached into that burlap bag and removed the decaying body. However there are certainly various opinions as to exactly when and where this occurred. Perhaps at this point and time the specificity of this will never be known.
On page 55 of Volume IV I believe that in regards to Det. Patterson's assignment you meant to write 1934 instead of 1932. Again your footnotes clearly indicate 1934. Minor stuff. It must be a major project to proof read all the information that you provide in your thorough Volumes.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Apr 6, 2022 18:03:08 GMT -5
Bernardt, Is this the photo you are posting about?
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jan 20, 2022 19:35:11 GMT -5
Sue,
Thanks for posting that 1932 Hopewell Phone Directory. I recognized a ton of names from my Hopewell childhood in the 1950's. The names brought back some great memories of good old Hopewell. I remember that our first phone in Hopewell was a party line and the number was 6J.
This directory has names that have come up in the discussions on this board: Matthews Construction Company, St, Michael's Orphanage, Skillman's Institute, Hurley, Charles "Doc" Ashton, Charles Williamson and of course Lindbergh. I do remember a phone booth in Cutter's Drug Store on Broad Street back in the day.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Dec 5, 2021 17:49:08 GMT -5
Joe,
That is a classic, well done!!
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 6, 2021 12:39:57 GMT -5
Excellent post Joe. Thanks for sharing your telephone conversation with Francesca Lupica. I've often wondered how the Italian Lupica family ended up in the Sourland Mountains outside of Hopewell. In the early times, Italian names did not make up too much of the Hopewell family names.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 3, 2021 19:03:31 GMT -5
Sherlock, I think that Michael has covered this issue, but I thought I would just add a couple comments. To me, the issue here in regards to the ladder evidence is not whether the electrician would or would not replace the pulled-up piece of flooring boarding. That's all speculation that could be debated forever. For me there is just two issues here that is germaine to the evidence: 1. Did rail 16 of the ladder come from the floor board in Hauptmann's attic? 2. Did the NJSP take that floor board out of the attic after Hauptmann's arrest in 1934 and fabricate evidence by replacing rail 16 of 1932 with that piece of floor board? For me, question number one has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt by the work and testimony of Koehler, the outstanding analysis of the ladder by Keraga, and the absolute solid research by Michael. As I'm sure you know, our criminal justice system requires proof in a criminal trial to be beyond all reasonable doubt, not all doubt. I see this level of proof as having been met in regards to question number one and thus for me this issue has been settled. That board came from Hauptmann's attic. As to question number two above, the numerous photos of the ladder, including Rail 16, that were taken by the NJSP and the press right after the kidnapping show the exact grain patterns, etc. on Rail 16 that exist even today on Rail 16 in the NJSP Museum. The one photo below shows the comparison of Rail 16 in the Springfield photo of 3/2/32 and a current photo of Rail 16 at the Museum--an exact match. The Springfield photo was obviously taken on the wall that surrounds the flagstone porch at Highfields. The second photo shows all the press that was allowed to see and examine the ladder at the same location. Unless one alleges that the Springfield photo of Rail 16 was somehow fabricated by the NJSP and not taken until after Hauptmann's arrest and a "new" Rail 16 was made, this photo on its own provides evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that Rail 16 NEVER changed in appearance between March 2, 1932 and the time of the trial. As far as I am concerned, this negates any allegations of police corruption on Rail 16. I feel that to speculate that Bormann somehow conspired with other NJSP Officers to fabricate Rail 16 requires employing the Johnny Cochran school of criminal defense. When the evidence against your client is so overwhelming, just throw that strand of spaghetti called police corruption against the wall and hope like hell that it sticks---"yeah, my client's blood is all over the murder scene but the Police put it there". I now may need to borrow that flak vest from you prior to your response! Attachment DeletedAttachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 29, 2021 12:43:27 GMT -5
Sue, thanks for finding and posting the Southeast Missourian news article that contains a photo of the Lindbergh house under construction. The article doesn't say exactly when the photo was taken but it is definitely the earliest photo of the house construction that I have seen. It shows the beginning of the framing process so even though many carpenters were involved in the house construction, one of the men in that photo could be my grandfather! My mother always said that her father was working at the house site from the very beginning of construction until his fatal heart attack on May 29th.
It was certainly a surprise to read that you had heard about the Lindbergh house construction worker who had a fatal heart attack at the house site, and that you had posted about the incident on the Ronelle's discussion board site way back in 2000. I had always just assumed that this incident involving my grandfather had only been published in the local newspapers. Your abilities to obtain articles and information on the LKC always amazes me!! You mentioned that it was a "sad story" and you are correct. My grandfather's death that day at the Lindbergh house left my grandmother with two minor children to raise during the Depression years without the income of her husband. Fortunately, my mother was 20 years old at that time and graduating from RN nursing school that very month of May. Her income as an RN during the Depression greatly helped provide for her mother and siblings. Those Depression years were extremely tough on most everyone---with the apparent exception of Hauptmann!
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 28, 2021 19:06:17 GMT -5
Thanks Sue for posting the December 1, 1930 article. Very interesting, and the article's mentioning that construction on the new Lindbergh house was to begin "next Spring" was personal to me. I have always been interested in determining exactly when the actual construction began as my grandfather Irvin VanNest died of a massive heart attack while working on the Lindbergh house on May 29, 1931. He was a carpenter in the local carpenter's union and as far as I know the only worker who died while working on the house. He specialized in door and window construction, but my mother always believed that he was working on the roof construction of the house when he had the fatal heart attack. I have never been successful in determining the exact stage of construction that was occurring on May 29th, 1931. I'm attaching the local news article of his death while working on the Lindbergh house.
|
|
|
V4
Sept 21, 2021 20:19:35 GMT -5
IloveDFW likes this
Post by lurp173 on Sept 21, 2021 20:19:35 GMT -5
Joe,
If you think Amazon Canada might be a long wait, I can always order another copy and ship it directly to you in Canada when I receive it.. Amazon here is selling it for $28 with free shipping, and they claim I will get it between 9/28 and 10/6. If you want me to do that just let me know, no problem. My email is: coveyrise2@gmail.com.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 21, 2021 11:51:29 GMT -5
Thanks for the heads-up Wayne. Just ordered it.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 20, 2021 17:43:33 GMT -5
Then again, not everyone felt Wahgoosh was much of a watch dog. I was attempting to attach the description that accompanied this photo, but it is apparently not coming through. It was from the Chicago Bureau dispatch that said: Reginald Whately, brother of the Lindbergh butler, was a frequent visitor to the Lindbergh home when his brother was there and he stated that: "the dog was useless as a watch-dog". Attachment DeletedAttachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 19, 2021 12:31:29 GMT -5
The discussions on Lupica and Hauptmann's Dodge have been very interesting. I do have a question in regards to Lupica. Has anyone read the alleged article from the "Daily Mirror' where Lupica allegedly identified Hauptmann as the man he saw in the Dodge vehicle on the evening of March 1st? I've read that Wilentz felt that because Lupica allegedly "sold" this story to the tabloid that it damaged Lupica's credibility as a witness and therefore Wilentz did not call him as a witness for the prosecution. However, from what I have seen of Lupica's trial testimony, it appears that on cross examination Wilentz did get Lupica to admit that although he (Lupica) could not identify Hauptmann directly, he did say that Hauptmann bore a strong resemblance to the man he observed in the Dodge.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 16, 2021 18:09:18 GMT -5
Guest, I believe this is the photo that Aaron was referring to in regards to a William Haas. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 16, 2021 12:32:34 GMT -5
Joe, You relate some very valid and interesting points in regards to Richard's and Anna's relationship upon her return from Germany. It's very hard to imagine that Anna did not question the source of their sudden financial gains and Richard's ability to be unemployed. Both Anna and Richard had always been working class people. In Anna's 9/21/34 interview with Assistant D.A. Breslin she certainly expressed a great dislike of Gerta Henkel who Anna said that Richard had met while she (Anna) was in Germany. Breslin hit her pretty directly with intimations that Richard had an affair with Gerta, but Anna wouldn't "bite" on that. I'm sure Breslin was just attempting to use that information to "turn" Anna against Richard but he obviously wasn't successful with that angle. The statement that you relate in your above post regarding Anna's alleged statement to journalist Smits is very telling. For me, it relates somewhat to C.J.'s alleged statement to Condon "would I burn if I did not kill it". Does anyone know the identity of the man in the below photo who is right/front eating a banana? It's a picnic photo taken at Hunters Island with Hauptmann, Klappenburg and the Henkels. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 13, 2021 12:02:42 GMT -5
Very interesting thoughts in your last post Joe. I would have one comment in regards to your last paragraph in reference to the $50,000 ransom amount. I know thay this has been discussed on the forum many times (and not to belabor it) but to me this $50,000 ransom which is the equivalent to about $900,000 in 2021 purchasing power is more than enough to motivate a group of 3 individuals like Hauptmann in 1932 It was such a great deal of money in the depths of the Great Depression. The kidnapper(s) knew that Lindbergh had money, but they needed this cash amount ready in just "2 to 4 days". They would have no idea exactly how much cash Lindbergh could actually produce in that short of time (and a short turn around for a swap of victim for cash is the hallmark of most successful kidnappings). Even with 3 individuals splitting this ransom amount, each would receive approximately $300,000 in today's money. I always remember what my father had told me about the Depression of the 1930's: "there was just no money out there for the average person to acquire". No credit cards, bank loans, etc. (an estimated 4,000 banks failed during 1933 alone, a number a States had NO banks in operation, and many families lost their life savings overnight). The only access to any cash for most people in the 1930's was a job if they were lucky enough to have one. I can only imagine what my father would have thought about the idea of receiving $300,000 in today's money in 1932 when he was 30 years old and was fortunate enough to have a job where he could work long hours just to put food on the table. It would have been completely unbelievable.
I just mention some of this because in my opinion it is so difficult for many of us today to really appreciate the great amount of money $50,000 was in 1932. For someone like Hauptmann who was not working steadily and was about to have his electricity cut off due to a lack of payment, just getting a cut of this ransom payment that would equal $300,000 in today's money would have been an absolute windfall. Obviously this lack of legal opportunities to obtain money in the 1930's led to a rise in crime including the snatch racket. I would imagine that there were alot of people who committed crimes in the 1930's during the Great Depression that they would not have thought about doing in the preceeding Roaring 20's.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 10, 2021 21:57:53 GMT -5
Sherlock, Something to consider about this. There is not a single account of Anne standing under the nursery and tossing pebbles at the window until Wilentz brought it up at the trial ~2 years after the kidnapping. He brought it up, not Anne. Anne never mentioned it once before the trial in any of her statements. Neither did Betty Gow. If anyone has documentation that Anne talked about tossing pebbles at the window before the trial, please attach it here. If Anne did toss the pebbles up at the window to attract Betty Gow and Charlie's attention, it could only have happened at the south-facing double French-style windows, and Anne would have been standing back far enough on the stone patio to be able to do this. The trail of footprints in the ground attributed to Anne leading to the back of the house in what I believe was an unbroken line are of course, too close to the house for her to have tossed pebbles at the south-east corner window and actually achieve eye contact with Betty and Charlie. During her trial testimony she simply couldn't tell which window it was. My questions are these. What would have been the purpose of fabricating this kind of story and who would it implicate if disproven? Could the footprints attributed to Anne have been made at an earlier date and time, but the prosecution felt the need to somehow tie them in to a fabricated story on the very day of the crime, lest the jury believe an unknown woman was involved in the kidnapping that night and therefore calling into doubt, the Lone Wolf accusation? Could this simply have been an omission on Anne's part and recalled later on, similar to the account of the "orange crate slats" sound heard by Lindbergh but not highlighted until much later, with the exception of his mentioning of it to Charlie Williamson that night? I would agree with Joe here on his comments regarding Anne's pebble throwing incident. I think there is a much less sinister explanation than assuming Anne would commit perjury as a witness in a criminal trial where a man's life was at stake (I have recently read Berg's excellent biography on Lindbergh and I can not believe Anne was involved in any criminal aspect of the LKC). At the trial, I believe Anne stated that she "walked from the driveway along by the side of the house where it was quite muddy and on to the flagstones, flagstone porch at the back." Although she could not be certain as to which window she tossed the pebbles at, she certainly seems to say that she was on the back flagstone porch, not standing directly under the SE window. Obviously it would have been easier for her to toss the pebbles up at the South facing double french-style windows, but as the below photos illustrate, I think one could stand on the extreme right side edge of the flagstone porch and hit the SE nursery window with a pebble. Anne wasn't certain which window was involved as it had now been about 3 years since the incident. She appeared to be honest and say she didn't know which window. Of course it would have been much "cleaner" if this had been in her statements of 1932, but as with many things in this investigation, the NJSP displayed a lack of investigative experience in their 3 year old Criminal Investigative Division. Trooper DeGaetano mentions the female prints in his written statement, and dismisses them as belonging to Anne Lindbergh. It appears that he (DeGaetano) received this information from Hopewell Police Chief Harry Wolfe. Wolfe had been inside the house with Anne Lindbergh, and both inside and outside the house with Charles Lindbergh prior to the arrival of either Trooper DeGaetano or Trooper Wolf, so it is only logical that Chief Wolfe was told by either Charles or Anne that these female footprints were those of Anne's. Chief Wolfe passed this information along to Trooper DeGaetano as they examined the scene that night. At this point, no one was going to question the veracity of the Lindberghs. Of course it should have been followed up in a statement by Anne, and her shoes compared to the footprints, but it wasn't done out of the respect everyone had for the Lindberghs. It was dismissed as being her footprints and that was the end of it until Hauptmann was arrested and Wilentz went with the "lone wolf" prosecution theory. I'm sure that as Wilentz was preparing for the trial by reading all of the police reports he immediately recognized that Trooper DeGaetano's written statement referring to female footprints was going to be something that the defense was going to jump on in order to negate any lone wolf theory. Believe me, prosecutors when doing trial preperation absolutely PANIC when they read any written statement that they know will assist the defense. Wilentz simply got with Anne and at this point she explained the cicumstances of her walk to the back flagstone porch, which she had never been quissed about back in 1932. I see no reason to jump to any sinister explanation that Anne would blatantly commit perjury about these female footprints. As Sherlock has stated in a recent post, real life investigations and criminal trials usually have FAR MORE simple explanations than all the authors, movie/TV writers can create for public consumption. Sometimes just plain sloppy investigations have to be cleaned up prior to trial, and it doesn't involve perjury. Good Investigators always conduct their cases with a future jury trial in mind. Failure to do this can be disastrous at trial time. Just my two cents on this.
|
|